The purpose of this thread is to provide one area for the discussion of the setup and events related to the Hundred Years War. This includes changes, new proposals and fantasy events.
Strange of you to mention this, I've been considering it since the Armagnacs have a tag in 1.08.ribbon22 said:Also, how come the BOU tag isn't called 'Armagnacs' or something like that? I mean, 'Dauphin' is an abstraction anyways, so wouldn't 'Armagnacs' or something be cool?
I've only been looking at this from a what if England wins the HYW standpoint. I promise to keep an open mind, feel free to post any ideas.ribbon22 said:btw, I am now going to sound even more like a heathen, but is there any way to make the HYW setup have more minors? (like a hybrid between EEP setup and what we have?). If not, what about adding in some minors as revolters! i.e. we could keep the current setup, but add some revolting minors to deal with that grey area between one extreme: an ENG that proceeds historically, and another extremem: ENG that conquors all of FRA. Some discussion on what we're going to do with an ENG that retains lands in FRA post-1453 would be cool.
event = {
id = 1000007
random = no
country = BUR
name = "The Treaty of Troyes"
desc = "..."
style = 1
action_a = {
name = "Support the Rights of Henry of Lancaster"
command = { type = stability value = 1 }
command = { type = removecore which = 385 } #Île de France
command = { type = relation which = ENG value = 50 }
command = { type = relation which = FRA value = -25 }
command = { type = relation which = BOU value = -100 }
command = { type = alliance which = ENG }
command = { type = breakvassal which = FRA }
command = { type = trigger which = 1000008 } # The Treaty of Troyes - Henry heir to Crown -> France
}
DarkTemplar said:If England already has an alliance (most of the time it's with Eire I've noticed), the alliance command does not seem to work. This leads to strange (ahistorical) situations, where England attacks Burgundy just months after signing this treaty. I don't know how to solve this, but I just wanted to report it.
BTW, great work on the HYW in AGCEEP
Already been discussed, the CB should be in the next version.Melchior said:in the event "the murder of john the fearless" burgundy gets an extra 15k of troops, but no cb on dauphine ? in random events you even get a cb by being insulted, but if your ruler is assasinated you don´t ???
I think I understand you here, but would you consider the Gasconny and the Aquitaine duchies mediterranean? It would suite my own perspective if they were. Or at least if they were more mediterranean than they were northern/atlantic.Bash said:Then real reason of fighting was - trying on French majority (inhabitants of atlantic zone) to bring minority (inhabitants of Mediterranean) to "common laws" & "way of life". From other side - Mediterranean population of modern France territory tried to fight this onslaught because "way of life of Notherners" ruined their life & brought them for poverty. This struggle has got different colours - religious & ideological: for example - Albiguenis wars or
Reformation wars - later.
I agree with you here. From another standpoint, if you take English and Norman history, the periods of English civil war in the 12th-13th centuries are punctuated by instances where the king has divided English rule across the channel. It made much more sense and practically it was more stable, when England rules her duchies from a centralized government.Bash said:But if you like to mirror real history more close - there wasn't any "nationalism" there (in Dauphine) due to fact - French side in this moment of war was effectively "Mediterranean French" side. It means...
In XI-XV centuries both part of English Channel had the same population with the same way of life & common customs. It was most rational & common sense idea to rule them from one source: this source was French kingdom & English crown as its vassal. In times of this "unity of some sort" French kings had enough strength & else to bring Mediterranean (i.e. primarily "alien") French society to vassality, but there were a lot of strong rudiments of independence here.
Do you mean in both Edward III and Henry V circumstancs, or only one of them? I think it was the French king who basically 'attainted' (declared his duchy forfeit to the French crown) and invaded Edward III's duchys in southwestern FRA that was the most direct reason for ENG invasion. And the FRA king's animosity towards Edward III is a throwback to Henry II's era which continued throughout Edward I's and Edward II's reigns. Also, it was convenient at the time for parliament to support Edward's invasion with money b/c of the cotton and wool furor in modern day Belgium, Holland regions; FRA was attempting to annex these lucrative lands of commerce.Bash said:Crisis broke out in wilting out main line of French kings with England cutting her vassalage from France. Valois family traditionally had her base support in south French provinces - then Mediterranean population acknowledged them as "people kings", but Northern population saw them as... "outsiders" at best. It was real reason for English trying for French crown, because withoun popular support in FRENCH population idea would be nonsense from start. Then we've got real historical backing up of this situation - when we've got historical evidence about Northern French population backing up English cause against "real French" side.
I agree, in terms of 'nationality' or 'sentiment', Normandy/Caux ties were much stronger than the Gascogne ties, but the Gascogne ties were certainly more important in terms of commerce. The Gascognes liked ENG rule b/c they knew they'd be given more freedom under ENG rule than they would under French. Again, if you considered Gascogne to be Mediterranean, then our two approaches would seem to be congruent.Bash said:This explained difference in opinion of Englishmen to different french provinces hold by Englishmen. Normandy, Caux & Picardy was as "core" lands for England as Midland or Wessex, but Gascogne or Poitie were - just English king fiefs.
well I'd agree with you, and I am guessign you're reffering to Bedford's rule in FRA with the council ruling in ENG? I must say though, that Bedford and at least York as the king's 'lieutenant' in FRA could and did excersise the powers of the king in terms of granting lands and appointments to councils, control of the local French exchequer and so on. But even by York's appointment, he was forced to replace the Norman and French nobles in his large 'Norman-council' with English ones, and then reduce the size of the council. It was becoming more and more evident to the Normans and the English that the English were in actuality war-time occupiers, and not really the rightful rulers.Bash said:Then - this political construction explain English disaster in XV century. By internal political reasons English government "split up" kingdom' territory to 2 separate halves - with different rulers in "continental" & "island" parts. This move destroyed main reason for Northern French support for English cause - what is reason for commoners in backing somebody, if he is just "appointed ruler", but not real king, when your compatriots fight & die for "real King" & "douce France"?? (Don't forget we are speaking about feudal society in its prime times.) What reason for nobility in fighting for somebody, if this man can't give you new fiefs of letting, because he is not King for that?
IMO, this is more indicative of the differences b/w Northern/Atlantic French and the English that had grown between 13th and 15th centuries. The time for England and French unity at this stage of the game, was almost 200 years out of date. The time for that kind reality was crushed whew Henry II's children decided to rebel against him, and side with the French king! Enter Richard I (the lionheart) who must have had one helluva fight with the French king while on their crusade together...and so subsequently John I, who lost all of ENG possessions in FRA. FRA even invaded ENG and occupied it for some time!Bash said:All English political structure in "continental part" crumbled very fast.
Yep. It is a case. I didn't like to enter some weird discussion here about ethnicity of Gascogne population in XV century, but I'm sure in had got a lot of basque ethnical component. It means they were not Nothern French guys & they were not Mediterraneans (by saying that I've mean inhabitants of Provencale region first of all). They were "third force" with their own customs & way of life different from other "major" factions. It means Gascognes people keep their ties with England on commercial ground, but in any other sense. If I remember correctly England just pacify some territorial mutual grudges with Castilla in this region - it means - local population was as "alien" to Northern French pop as to Mediterranean France pop - it brings their attitude to HYW. (& their attitude to main French population brings Reformation wars in France latet "If there isn't difference in Kings, why to pay more?"ribbon22 said:I agree, in terms of 'nationality' or 'sentiment', Normandy/Caux ties were much stronger than the Gascogne ties, but the Gascogne ties were certainly more important in terms of commerce. The Gascognes liked ENG rule b/c they knew they'd be given more freedom under ENG rule than they would under French. Again, if you considered Gascogne to be Mediterranean, then our two approaches would seem to be congruent.
ENG begins with cores on Normandy, Caux, Calais and Gascogne, but not on Picardie. You're referring to the parlilament decision about how to govern ENG after Henry V's death, I assume.Bash said:1. Initial stage - England has cores on French territories in Normandy, Caux, Picardy (?) & Calais (?). France definitely hasn't shields on Normandy & Caux.
This stage come to end by English "Parliament decision" event.
Well there's alot in this quote but I'll try to comment constructively. Probably the biggest thing that struck me was the core management. I'm not too sure that it should logically follow that if Gloucester was given the powers of king, that ENG should lose cores on Wales and Northumberland. The HYW united ENG nobles to a degree that superceded the ugly usurpation and rebellions that had punctuated Richard II's and Henry IV's reign. Gloucester was a strong adherent to his older brother's (Henry V's) policy of aggression in FRA. So it's logical to assume that the 'diverted attention' of ENG's nobles would continue under Gloucester's rule. The situation is diferent, however, if Henry V rejects the Treaty of Troyes or, as it stands, opts for a "generous peace". And is a probably a more interesting matter of debate.Bash said:2. "England in bifurcation point" - real reason for splitting is - England in XV century was the same "two-headed" ethnicity monster as France, but her problem was struggle between: 1) way of life her South temperate climatic zone way of life & common customs; 2) way of life her North sub-boreal climatic zone. Then struggle between Gloster & Beauforts in Parliament was struggle between Gloster (south-end native) surrounding & Beaufort (north-end native) supports. By the way - later these (hidden in 1420-s) internal strifes brought in War of Roses in England (but trigger for War of Roses was losing in HYW - not any rather petty political conflicts - of course). Then - this event MUST have some visual part & some hidden part:
1) in its ahistorical b option - "Gloster has got supreme ruling over England & his southern raised minions push out Beauforts & their northern brethren from power - Northern lands of England are unhappy":
This choice in visible part of iceberg must bring so harsh thing as losing shields on Northumbria & Wales definitely & on Lancaster (or maybe - Yorkshire) as possible any other maluses are possible as well;
But in invisible part this choice must send "Jeanne" event for sleeping forever - I'm sure in this moment it's fair enough bonus for England
2) in its historical a option - "Gloster confined in continental part of country - Northern lands of England are happy" - we can give England (in visual side) a lot of sweet things - like stability improvement & infra bonuses, but its hidden part we've got just one subtle string - "Jeanne event is awaken".
I can't see SCO attaining anglosaxon culture this early, not until the Act of Union for a SCO player. And especially if we end up creating a GBR tag ("Great Britain" tag). So I suppose I just don't see ENG's northern shires and marcher lands as a big problem, really, besides the usual threat from SCO invasion.Bash said:By the way - this "bifurcation" moment can imply one interesting option with a lot of consequences: if English government "turned face on South" (in ahistorical decision), it means it "turn back on North" - what do you think would reaction of "degraded by this decision" population of English Northlands be? These lands had the same customs & way of living as population of Scotland Lowlands...
I see England in this moment of history like sleeping guy under rather short blanket: he can cover only upper or lower part of his body. England in historical option covers her "upper-part", but what would be consequence if she would cover her "low-part"??? Would it be right to shift centre of power in British Isles to Scotland favor - giving them by this ahistorical choice - some event giving them "anglosaxon culture" - for example?! I'm sure it would keep "balance of power" intact here & open a mighty can of worms in this district till... XIX century .
currently, ENG doesn't start with French culture. The ENG player has a claim to the FRA throne (thus it's easy for them to retain the cores, and attain more cores) but it's another thing to win the people over. The idea was to give ENG french culture as a reward for winning the FRA war. But no talk of this has yielded much. My view is that ENG, having united the crown, leaps into a massive civil war upon Henry VI's death, in 1471. And only after surviving this, should ENG probably get French culture.Bash said:4) "Reims coronation" event...but most important thing is - France can lose any war - it's nothing, but England losing on french soil means - "ENGLAND LOST HYW & FRENCH CULTURE" for good. In other words - "Reims coronation" event takes out from England any shields on French soil for start, & let "French win on HYW" event to be awaken... till 1819! "Godmills work slowly, but fine..."
Excuse me I've used to start any discussion from vanilla version conditions. (It help me to make it simple for anyone in different topics .)ribbon22 said:ENG begins with cores on Normandy, Caux, Calais and Gascogne, but not on Picardie.
If we do that, then I'd still protest giving french culture to England from the get go. I'd prefer to have ENG pacify northern FRA, and then have to fight even further still, for Southern subjugation. Occitanian might help Isaac with Italy, as he made comments about Italy only having one cutlure. Occitanian culture could also be utlized in a French uprising against a victorious ENG in the HYW.Rhodz said:It might be a good idea to split French culture into two: French(northern France) and Occitanian(mediterranean sphere). England would have "french" culture, due to their ease in taking on the northern French, but wouldnt gte Occitanian until they won the hundred years war. Dauphine would start off with Occitanian culture, as would Provence, but when Dauphine becomes France, Occitanian is removed, French granted, then with the absorption of Provence, Occitanian given again. Good idea?